<DOC>
[Cannon's Precedents -- Volume VIII]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:cannon_cclxvi.wais]



                           Chapter CCLXVI.\1\
 
               PRIVILEGE AND FORM OF CONFERENCE REPORTS.

   1. Decisions illustrating high privilege of. Sections 3291-
     3294.
   2. Signing of, by the managers. Section 3295.
   3. Forms of, in present practice. Sections 3296, 3297.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  3291. Consideration of a conference report has precedence of a motion 
to go into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a 
general appropriation bill.--[On May 5, 1908,\2\ Mr. James A. Tawney, 
of Minnesota, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
sundry civil appropriation bill.]
  Mr. John H. Foster, of Indiana, offered, as preferential, a motion 
for the consideration of the conference report on the bill (S. 29) for 
the control of tuberculosis in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, the minority leader, submitted that the 
motion to go into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a 
general appropriation bill was preferential.
  The Speaker \3\ held that the consideration of a conference report 
was of higher privilege and recognized Mr. Foster to call up the 
report, which was considered and agreed to.
  3292. Consideration of conference reports is in order on days devoted 
to District of Columbia business under the rules.--[On February 27, 
1911,\4\ a Monday set apart under the rules for the consideration of 
business reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia, Mr. 
Samuel W. Smith, of Michigan, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
consideration of District of Columbia business on the calendar.]
  Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, interposed and demanded 
recognition to call up for consideration the conference report on the 
legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill.
  The Speaker \3\ held that the conference report took precedence of 
District of Columbia business in order on that day, and recognized Mr. 
Gillett to call up the conference report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Supplementary to Chapter CXXXVI.
  \2\ First session Sixtieth Congress, p. 5766.
  \3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \4\ Third session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 3589.
                                                            Sec. 3293
  3293.  On Monday, May 13, 1912,\1\ a day set apart by the rules for 
the consideration of bills reprted by the Committee on the District of 
Columbia, Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, proposed to call up the bill 
(S. 2224) to regulate the height of buildings in the District of 
Columbia, reported by that committee.
  Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, interposed a request that the 
Speaker lay before the House a conference report on the joint 
resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several 
States.
  Mr. Johnson having demanded, as the regular order, that the House 
proceed to the consideration of bills on the calendar reported by the 
District of Columbia, the Speaker \2\ held that conference reports took 
precedence of business in order on District Monday.
  3294. A conference report displaces consideration of a report from a 
special committee and may interrupt debate, but a Member so taken from 
the floor is entitled to recognition when the privileged matter has 
been disposed.--On March 3, 1919,\3\ Mr. Ben Johnson, of Kentucky, from 
the special committee appointed to investigate and report on the 
personnel, finances, character, and activities of the National Security 
League, had concluded the reading of the report of the committee, when, 
pending recognition of Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, to present 
minority views, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, rose to a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  In response to Mr. Mann's inquiry, the Speaker \2\ held that it would 
be in order to call up a conference report at any time during the 
proceedings and that a conference report so called up would displace 
the report of the special committee. In reply to a further inquiry from 
Mr. Mann, the Speaker also held that a conference report so called up 
would take a Member debating the special report from the floor, but 
after disposition of the conference report the Member interrupted would 
be entitled to recognition to resume debate.
  Thereupon, Mr. Walsh was recognized to read the minority report from 
the special committee, when Mr. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia, called up 
the conference report on the diplomatic and consular appropriation 
bill.
  On the following day,\4\ the conference report having been disposed 
of, the Speaker recognized Mr. Walsh to conclude debate interrupted 
when the conference report was called up.
  3295. Conference reports must be signed by the managers.--On May 18, 
1910,\5\ in the Senate, Mr. Jonathan P. Dolliver, of Iowa, proposed to 
submit a conference report on the agricultural appropriation bill.
  Mr. Eugene Hale, of Maine, raised the question of order that the 
report could not be received, because it was not in proper form in that 
it had not been signed by the managers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6345.
  \2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
  \3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4925.
  \4\ Record, p. 5035.
  \5\ Second session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 6443.
Sec. 3296
  The President pro tempore \1\ sustained the point of order and ruled:


  The Chair is of the opinion that the conference report should have 
been signed even under the statement made by the Senator from Iowa. The 
Senate must have before it a report signed by the conferees. That is 
the opinion of the Chair.


  3296. While conference reports must be written in duplicate, it is 
the practice to prepare conference reports on appropriation bills in 
triplicate, and on occasion all conference reports have been required 
in triplicate.--On February 19, 1913,\2\ Mr. John J. Fitzgerald, of New 
York, asked unanimous consent for the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution requiring all conference reports to be made in triplicate, 
one copy to be delivered to the enrolling clerk of the House in which 
the respective bills originated.
  Pending his request, Mr. Fitzgerald explained:


  The object is to facilitate the work of the enrolling room during the 
remaining days of the session. The practice of the Committee on 
Appropriation has been three copies of their conference reports. That 
has been of such great advantage that the enrolling clerks have 
requested that it be extended to all conference reports. The purpose of 
this is to enable the enrolling clerks to start their work. The 
comparison will be made with the original.


  Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, demurred:

  It does not seem to me that there is any occasion for requiring a 
copy of every conference report to be delivered to the enrolling clerk, 
unless it be on appropriation bills. That might be desirable. Many of 
the Members of the House who go on conference committees do not have 
clerks who are thoroughly familiar with requirements of this sort, and 
I do not see any necessity of it. I suppose the purpose of it is to 
have copies of the appropriation bills. Why not confine it to that?
  I am not at all certain that it will work successfully, although I am 
willing to try it on appropriation bills. Copies of conference reports 
are not always the same, but when a conference report is presented to 
the Senate it is printed, and when it is presented to the House it is 
printed at some time or other. If there are errors, they are 
discovered. Here is a proposition to deliver another conference report 
to the enrolling room which never is presented to either body. If there 
is an error in it, of course the error will be copied into the enrolled 
bill.
  The enrolling clerks are not going to compare an enrolled bill with 
two original conference reports. When you deliver a paper in 
triplicate, each one is an original. I have no objections, if you 
confine this to the appropriation bills.


  Thereupon, Mr. Fitzgerald withdrew the resolution, and on the 
following day \3\ presented it in this form:


  Resolved, That the managers on the part of the House shall, during 
the remainder of this session, present with all conference reports an 
extra copy for the use of the enrolling clerk.


  By unanimous consent, the resolution was considered and agreed to 
without debate.
  3297. Conference reports in citing amendments must refer to the 
engrossed copies of the bill and amendments and not to reprints.--On 
December 22, 1916,\4\ the House was considering the conference report 
on the bill (H. R.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ William P. Frye, of Maine, President pro tempore.
  \2\ Third session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 3467.
  \3\ Record, p. 3056.
  \4\ Second session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 680.
                                                            Sec. 3297
407) to provide for stock-raising homesteads, when Mr. James R. Mann, 
of Illinois, to whom time had been yielded for debate, said:


  Mr. Speaker, without making any criticism of the conference report, 
but merely for the purpose of calling the attention of Members to the 
method of making up the conference report, I want to make a little 
statement. When the House passes a bill, the bill is engrossed and sent 
to the Senate. That is the only official copy of the bill, the 
engrossed copy, which accompanies all communications between the two 
Houses. If the Senate adds amendments, those amendments are engrossed, 
and reference is made in page and line to the original engrossed copy 
of the House, and when the two Houses finally act that original 
engrossed copy with amendments which might be added goes to the 
enrolling clerk and he makes up the enrolled bill from that. As a 
matter of convenience we print the House bill with Senate amendments, 
Senate amendments numbered and interlined in the bill in italics, but 
that is not the official copy that goes to the engrossing clerk, and 
where an amendment is offered, as in this case in the conference 
report, by reference to this unofficial copy instead of the official 
copy, the clerk has to guess at what the two Houses mean when he goes 
to enroll the bill, and it is never safe for the enrolling clerk to 
guess at what goes in the enrolled bill. Now, in this case reference is 
made to page 3, line 12, after the word ``areas'' insert the following: 
``of the character herein described;'' but there is no such word as 
``areas'' on page 3, line 12, of the engrossed copy of the bill. Then 
again page 9, line 22, after the word ``lands'' add the following. 
There is no such word as ``lands'' on page 9, line 22, of the copy of 
the bill which goes to the clerk to be enrolled. I imagine in this case 
the clerk will be able to guess correctly and enroll the bill 
correctly, and yet members of the conference committee, or their 
clerks, ought to be very careful when they refer to page and line of 
the engrossed bill to have the engrossed bill to properly refer to, so 
that mistakes will not occur, and then the error be laid to the 
enrolling clerk of one of the Houses.